Tag Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

Uncategorized

S.C. senator faces rightie challenge

I don’t know why I should give a damn about what happens in South Carolina.

But I do.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, is facing a 2014 GOP primary challenge from South Carolina state Sen. Lee Bright who thinks Graham is too supportive of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, among other issues.

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/316779-graham-challenger-launches-campaign-with-attacks-on-immigration-civil-liberties

Bright is looking like a dim bulb here.

Graham isn’t exactly a flaming lefty. Far from it. He’s as conservative as most Republicans in the Senate. He votes the party line more than 90 percent of the time. He’s also a talented military lawyer who understands a thing or two about presidential prerogative, which means that presidents — by virtue of their election — have the right to pick qualified judicial candidates. Yes, the Senate has the right under the Constitution to confirm those appointments. It’s rare that senators do not go along with presidential picks.

President Obama has selected qualified judges throughout his time in the White House. The problem with many of them, according to those on the right, is that they share Obama’s more liberal view of jurisprudence. That’s no reason by itself to oppose someone.

And no, this is not a partisan concern with me. I’ve argued the same thing on behalf of Republican presidents as well. President George W. Bush’s selections for the high court weren’t exactly my favorites, but he had the right to pick qualified individuals to serve — and he did.

I’m a big believer in presidential prerogative. Lee Bright apparently doesn’t share that belief, especially when the president belongs to the other party.

Lindsey Graham, to his credit, gets it.

Uncategorized

AG picks fight with Texas

Well, that’s a big surprise. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government is suing Texas to make sure the state follows federal civil-rights law – and Texas Republicans go ballistic, saying the feds are picking on the Lone Star State.

Someone has to be singled out, yes? If not Texas, then which state feels the heat? Mississippi? Alabama? Georgia?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/313535-texas-gop-pans-holder-move

Holder has asked a court to require Texas to obtain “pre-clearance” before enacting any state laws governing Texans’ voting rights. It seems Texas is one of those states with some history of denying certain folks full access to voting rights based on their race or ethnicity. The U.S. Supreme Court decided earlier this year that the federal requirement is no longer necessary and has left these decisions up to the states.

The AG says that’s not good enough.

Thus, the Justice Department is taking action to ensure that Texas complies right off the top.

I applaud the attorney general for seeking to guarantee that the rights of full citizenship for all Americans – even those who live in Texas – are protected under federal law.

The Hill said this in reporting the story:

“White House spokesman Josh Earnest defended the move, saying ‘the goal of the administration… is to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.’  

‘“That includes protecting the voting rights of all Americans who are eligible to vote – that’s the goal here,’ Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One. ‘I would assume that that would be a goal that would also be supported by congressional Republicans. We’ll see.’”

Members of the state’s congressional delegation, dominated of course by Republicans, see it differently.

“My belief is (the) Voting Rights Act and those laws ought to be applied equally across states, and not played for political games, which is exactly what I see happening here,” U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady said. “Eric Holder (is) just singling us out – just skipped through the alphabet and happened to land on Texas.”

Something tells me the Justice Department doesn’t really care what Texas Republicans – given their intense antipathy toward the president and his administration – think of its voting-rights policy.